Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Busby

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Busby

edit
Christopher Busby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. The subject of this article has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:NOTE), and nor does he pass the professor test (he fails all nine criteria of WP:PROF). Even within the area of fringe radiation research he is hardly notable, except in the echo chamber of groups he is a member of (Green Audit, the LLRC, ECRR, CERRIE, etc and their websites - all affiliated with him). Verbal chat 19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to ECRR following the two arguments below. He still fails WP:BIO etc. Verbal chat 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I was able to find some reference for Dr. Busby, as shown here [1][2][3], however the articles are not about him. They are more focused on the aspects of a court case and mention Dr. Busby only in the context of his testimony in that case. Without any references focusing on Dr. Busby specifically, no Notability established. Hence delete. ShoesssS Talk 20:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Change to Merge/Redirect toEuropean Committee on Radiation Risks. Though there are a number of articles that reference '''Christopher Busby''' they are only in relation to his position with the European Committee on Radiation Risks, which is the main focus of the pieces and, again, Mr. Busby is only mentioned in the context of being the Secretary of European Committee on Radiation Risks. The position itself does not grant Notability, hence my reason for my original deletion opinion of Christopher Busby piece. A merge and redirect to European Committee on Radiation Risks is more appropriate. Hope this helps explain my position. ShoesssS Talk 12:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. Just taking a few entries from the top of the GoogleNews search[4], one finds quite a few news-stories related to him that do not even mention European Committee on Radiation Risks at all, and describe Busby in other ways, as a radiation expert/scientist/green party activist/adviser to the British government/founder of Green Audit, such as: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. This is just a sample of what is available. Given that much of the coverage is not related to European Committee on Radiation Risks, merging there would not be appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hey Nsk92, I went through the articles you provided and again did another search with regards to Dr. Busby and again came to the same conclusion. Though there are a number of articles that have a quote from him in the article the articles themselves are not about him. I am looking to establish Notability about the individual, not his cause. Hey, if you know me and look at my opinion record, I have always been considered an inclusionist, looking for reasons to keep. Sorry to say in this case, I do not believe Notability about the individual has been established. Again this goes to my opinion regarding Merge/Redirect, linking him to his favored cause and organization. ShoesssS Talk 16:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY Keep. THIS search found ample articles on Busby himself, and should provide proper sourcing for the article.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
Comment Those references mostly fail WP:RS, and the others fail WP:SELFPUB, as commented in the nomination. As commented in the nomination, he fails the general notability guideline. Verbal chat 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not important references by anyone working in the field. Do you have a source for this claim? Verbal chat 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are important references. So I will return you the question: how can you say that there are not important references? Are you working in this field? Did you read these books? Yann (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Verbal: Can you please answer my question above? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. On one hand, most of the WP:PROF criteria do not seem to be satisfied. Little evidence of substantial citability of his scholarly work in GoogleScholar[11] (top citation hits 18, 17, 15) and GoogleBooks[12] (the latter has quite a few false positives). I also did a Scopus search and the results there are even smaller. On the other hand, GoogleNews results, even after filtering, are substantial, 132 hits[13]. All of them provide nontrivial coverage of him, although none appear to provide in-depth coverage of him personally. However, in a number of these newsarticles he is featured quite prominently, such as this BBC report, which is primarily about him[14]. A few quotes from the newsarticles in this googlenews search:"Dr Chris Busby, a leading expert on low-level radiation"[15], "a top radiation scientist, Chris Busby"[16], "An international expert on low level radiation, Busby"[17]. Apparently some of his activism in Britain produced quite a bit of a splash and even something of a sensation, as these reports show[18][19][20][21][22]. In view of the number of sources and the fact that the coverage they provide is nontrivial, I think that this does pass WP:BIO, albeit weakly (weakly since these articles generally don't discuss Busby as a person). One could also make an argument for passing criterion 7 of WP:PROF:"The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (my least favorite portion of WP:PROF, but still). As note number 14 in WP:PROF says, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." That appears to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments But this isn't related to his academic competence, this is to do with his activism which falls outside of WP:PROF. As far as I am aware he holds no academic positions. Many of the reports involving him are from local rather than national coverage, and as you say are not about him specifically. Verbal chat 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think about this as a WP:BIO case, but in these recent sources he is described as affiliated with the Liverpool University: The Times, 2006[23]"were obtained by Chris Busby, of Liverpool University’s department of human anatomy and cell biology"; News.com.au, 2006[24]:"Chris Busby, from Liverpool University, north-west England, and a founder of environmental consultancy Green Audit"; Uruknet, 2005[25]:"He is Dr. Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine". In fact, whenever he is mentioned in the news, he is always described as a scientist. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I think that notability here comes primarily from his environmental activism, and that there is a passable WP:BIO case on those grounds here. It is true that, unlike in articles about some new teen heartthrob actor/actress, we don't have information about Busby's favorite toothpaste, favorite pizza, the kind of music he listens to or what was the name of a cat he had a child. But such information is not necessary for passing WP:BIO and one needs to excercise some common sense here. WP:BIO offers the following guidance:"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I think that is exactly what we have here. Plenty of sources providing nontrivial coverage of him. This coverage does have real substance to it. Whenever he is mentioned, it is not just in some clerk-type role of a representative of this or that organization reading its statement or something. Busby is usually described by the news-sources as an active individual proponent of various causes and ideas. In my view this does make him pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of various fringe causes and ideas. Also, they are not about him. The mentions still add up to a lot of, in my opinion (and you're welcome to disagree, I have no personal vendetta against this crank), trivial coverage of him. Some of the groups he is affiliated with, such as the ECRR, seem notable and is a place where his views could be aired (being weary of wp:coatrack here), but to give him his own article seems to be giving him too much notability - when even his own secretary argued against their notability in the recent Low Level Radiation Campaign deletion discussion (which I found worrying at the time). His affiliation to a British University seems sad to me, and is part of a pattern of secretive homeopathic BSc degree courses and other infiltrations of pseudoscience - but I digress. I think a redirect and summary in some other article may be more appropriate, rather than trying to bend notability requirements until his low dose can fit (bad joke there, sorry - I'm having a bad week :)). Verbal chat 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in response to Shoessss above, there are plenty of news-stories regarding him that don't even mention the European Committee on Radiation Risk and that describe Busby as a scientist/advisor to British government/green activist. E.g. this BBC story is primarily about Busby's report:[26]. Other examples of this kind are [27][28][29][30][31][32], etc. There is quite enough personal info about him from reliable sources for an article, such as this page at CERRIE[33]. Since he is primarily notable for his environmental activism, it is natural and appropriate that most sources providing coverage of him cover his activism and not his personal life. However, that is still nontrivial coverage of him that does count under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure if a biography provided by a committee he was a member of can be considered a reliable source on which an article could be based without further corroboration. My main problem with the current level of sourcing is that there's no direct discussion of the subject, he doesn't appear to have been profiled by either the main-stream or specialist press, his cause is certainly notable I'm not sure if he is. If there are a dozen members of a committee who do the same thing and then one of them gives quotes to the media when the committee's asked, does that make them more notable than the other eleven, does it make them notable beyond the notability of the committee itself? Since we already have an article on the particular committee that the subject seems to have received the most coverage for (if not as you say his only recorded endeavour) it seemed like a logical place where any information could be preserved. Guest9999 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and, specifically, WP:SELFPUB address your first point. The use of self-published or primary sources for verifiability purposes related to basic non-controversial biographical data (education, family status, nationality, etc) is acceptable. Moreover, it is standard practice to use, say, CV's of academics as sources for basic biographical info about them of the above kind. More controversial matters, such as discussion of political positions and impact of political activism, should certainly be sourced to secondary sources (which, in this case, are available in relation to his environmental activism). Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that still true even if the person being considered has been shown to not always be a reliable source about their own achievements and qualifications, etc? Verbal chat 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you make some good points and have me half convinced but I'm still concerned by the issue of the lack of any substantial biographical information from independent sources. On that basis I've struck part of my original opinion above. Guest9999 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Busby&oldid=1077972883"